> GPL and copyleft further a cause. It's primarily for increasing user freedom.
I don't disagree that that's the intent of the GPL and copyleft; I'm not convinced that (once the pragmatic case for Free software was established), that it is the actual effect of the GPL and copyleft. User freedom is maximized by having the most software available under the least restrictive licenses; copyleft licenses add restrictions with the intent of using those restrictions to compel downstream developers to also release modifications as Free software. However, if there are already pragmatic benefits to releasing Free software, the marginal benefits of those additional restrictions in terms of actually promoting practical user freedom is reduced, while the additional restrictions are, themselves, restrictions that can limit the freedom of users.
> You're free to disagree with its agenda. But recognize it as a cause.
I can recognize it as being directed at serving a cause and still think it does so poorly.
> Basic software dependencies, with few exceptions, are subject to GPL. Why would anyone expect otherwise?
Because interoperation with something doesn't make it a derivative work requiring a copyright license usually (though, I suppose, that view of Stallman's is consistent with the still-on-appeal ruling on API copyrights in Oracle v. Google.)
I don't disagree that that's the intent of the GPL and copyleft; I'm not convinced that (once the pragmatic case for Free software was established), that it is the actual effect of the GPL and copyleft. User freedom is maximized by having the most software available under the least restrictive licenses; copyleft licenses add restrictions with the intent of using those restrictions to compel downstream developers to also release modifications as Free software. However, if there are already pragmatic benefits to releasing Free software, the marginal benefits of those additional restrictions in terms of actually promoting practical user freedom is reduced, while the additional restrictions are, themselves, restrictions that can limit the freedom of users.
> You're free to disagree with its agenda. But recognize it as a cause.
I can recognize it as being directed at serving a cause and still think it does so poorly.
> Basic software dependencies, with few exceptions, are subject to GPL. Why would anyone expect otherwise?
Because interoperation with something doesn't make it a derivative work requiring a copyright license usually (though, I suppose, that view of Stallman's is consistent with the still-on-appeal ruling on API copyrights in Oracle v. Google.)